Quite possibly the largest and most thought after question to arise from humanity. I will not be convincing you of any conclusions, but I would like to spare you a more transparent mind towards this topic. I will be starting by describing the state man in his role of being.

Whatever you believe, whether it is atheism or theism or anything other, we all can admit one thing, the universe is an amazing place, beautiful, wrapped in majesty...or is it? Death, decay, rot, destruction etc, feeds this universe to keep on existing as it is. One wouldn't question the disgust of a murderer on whether he is committing beautiful acts because it keeps him satisfied, would they? Even if he gave to the poor along the way, one would still describe this man as morally wrong and destructive. It seems that something evil defines the collective purpose of something that could have been good or morally right.

The universe I think isn't a good place, although beauty does shine here, and in many cases in vast quantities. Beauty doesn't define something as good. As one said, the Devil loves a sun set, the smell of roses and the taste of honey. Trying to answer the question of or purpose is near impossible, and I don't think science has the slightest chance of coming close to the answer. I believe though however that science can direct someone in finding purpose. As human, we communicate through information, or definitive meaning, science does this, but not specifically targeted at humanity, or any kind of intelligence. Or in other words, science cannot give meaning to our existence within our intellectual understanding.

Don't let me mislead you here, science is incredible. It tells us all there is to know about how the universe functions, but like squeezing a lemon onto salmon, the process of such a series of actions doesn't explain what the process is for, it just creates a series of actions that constructed with the use of human ingenuity.

Science with the us of my logic doesn't add up in it's nature to answer purpose, just how things work and why they work. And the answer we seek is the purpose of existence, something science shall never answer.

If a man has a purpose, what would the purpose consist of? For example; if someone needed to catch a plane, this is a purpose. The purpose doesn't concern anyone else, unless they participate in helping this person catch the plane. This of course makes the purpose a personal matter. It is personal in that it is relevant to him that this person can catch the plane.

It is possible that we therefore create our own purposes, the universe, or world as it is more formally known, is what we make it? Yes, if you want you're family to be the reason for your existence, then that is possible. But this kind of purpose doesn't sum up the purpose of the universe, and why we exist in it.

I don't credit myself as being intellectually smart or knowledgeable, but if purpose is reasoned as a personal event for an individual and the universe is defined as being non self explanatory then, we can only conclude that there is no such thing as objective purpose, or that purpose has not opposed use in hiding out of our reach, but maybe, it is just possible that if we seek long enough, in thought and reflection, it might reveal it's self to use. Or simply put, it exists, we just need to find it. Ever had an Easter Egg hunt, yeah like that.

This may not be the most informative article ever, but I hope it shows some interesting points.

I like to think there could be one purpose. It seems possible sometimes. And then if there's only one purpose, that purpose might as well be God. You could say it was objective at the least. And then we might unite our chakras and evolve into humanity 2.0! God mode.

Of course this doesn't matter to you because you're a troll, but just saying.

I do not know about a personal purpose but maybe a mechanical function. Dr. Lee Smolin suggests that the universe is actually just a perfect black hole generator. Out of all universes you could hypothetically make by mixing the physical constants together (assuming these other constant combinations were actual possibilities), ours is the best for maximizing black hole production. This type of universe necessitates the possibility of a natural chemistry set producing a self-replicating molecule (life) appearing as an accidental bi-product of such a black hole generator.

This hypothesis might be wrong, but it would explain why we live in such a large and old universe; to maximize black hole production until the universe runs out of usable energy.

At 5/14/2013 8:12:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:I do not know about a personal purpose but maybe a mechanical function. Dr. Lee Smolin suggests that the universe is actually just a perfect black hole generator. Out of all universes you could hypothetically make by mixing the physical constants together (assuming these other constant combinations were actual possibilities), ours is the best for maximizing black hole production. This type of universe necessitates the possibility of a natural chemistry set producing a self-replicating molecule (life) appearing as an accidental bi-product of such a black hole generator.

This hypothesis might be wrong, but it would explain why we live in such a large and old universe; to maximize black hole production until the universe runs out of usable energy.

I'd say that on atheism, there appears to be no objective purpose to man's life; man is nothing but an accident. He is just a configuration of matter not unlike a rock or an amoeba that by chance just so happened to take such "man" form. He is destined to die individually and his whole race - indeed the whole universe - is doomed to perish if not in the not-so-distant future, in heat death of the universe.

At 5/14/2013 9:18:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:I'd say that on atheism, there appears to be no objective purpose to man's life; man is nothing but an accident. He is just a configuration of matter not unlike a rock or an amoeba that by chance just so happened to take such "man" form. He is destined to die individually and his whole race - indeed the whole universe - is doomed to perish if not in the not-so-distant future, in heat death of the universe.

If reeses peanut butter cups came about by accident would that make them any less delicious?

Personally...the thought that babies born with harlequin ichthyosis are mere unfortunate accidents is much more comforting than the belief they have a purpose and it's merely to be born and suffer an agonizing death.

At 5/14/2013 9:18:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:I'd say that on atheism, there appears to be no objective purpose to man's life; man is nothing but an accident. He is just a configuration of matter not unlike a rock or an amoeba that by chance just so happened to take such "man" form. He is destined to die individually and his whole race - indeed the whole universe - is doomed to perish if not in the not-so-distant future, in heat death of the universe.

If reeses peanut butter cups came about by accident would that make them any less delicious?

Notice I left room on atheism for the existence of subjective purpose that homo sapiens are able to attach to their lives. I'm simply saying that the only type of purpose man can have on atheism seems to be completely non-objective (i.e. subjective). It doesn't help your attempt at an analogy to have it hinge upon something or other being delicious or not; deliciousness is a subjective feature of things.

Personally...the thought that babies born with harlequin ichthyosis are mere unfortunate accidents is much more comforting than the belief they have a purpose and it's merely to be born and suffer an agonizing death.

God doesn't will humans be born with abhorrent diseases or physical ailments. He obviously allows these things to occur, for whatever reason. But it would be erroneous to think that the purpose of life, if God exists, is to have a happy, enjoyable existence with God tending to our every need and comfort as his pets. Rather, the purpose of life seems to be to know of God, given our unique capacity for rational thought (and no, I'm not making some such claim that Earth is the only planet in the universe with life).

At 5/14/2013 9:18:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:I'd say that on atheism, there appears to be no objective purpose to man's life; man is nothing but an accident. He is just a configuration of matter not unlike a rock or an amoeba that by chance just so happened to take such "man" form. He is destined to die individually and his whole race - indeed the whole universe - is doomed to perish if not in the not-so-distant future, in heat death of the universe.

This is almost all correct...

It is not just by chance. There are forces of nature and physics at work here which could lead to specific results, with chance only playing a role. However I agree that there is no real objective meaning to man's life at all under Atheism. We are just an accidental bi-product of a universe virtually completely lethal to life. When our brains go our minds and consciousness go. Why mention the Heat Death like that somehow matters to us? We will be wiped out by heat from the Sun before the Sun even goes Red Giant and before The Andromeda galaxy collision. All you have to do is look at yourself and ask if you want to continue to live with this knowledge. If you do, then the only rational thing to do is make a better life for you and the people around you to make it comfortable until that day you get turned to ashes or end up in the ground. Life is the only thing we have. Just because it does not have any meaning on a cosmic scale and is doomed does not mean we should throw it all away early in my opinion.

At 5/14/2013 9:18:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:I'd say that on atheism, there appears to be no objective purpose to man's life; man is nothing but an accident. He is just a configuration of matter not unlike a rock or an amoeba that by chance just so happened to take such "man" form. He is destined to die individually and his whole race - indeed the whole universe - is doomed to perish if not in the not-so-distant future, in heat death of the universe.

If reeses peanut butter cups came about by accident would that make them any less delicious?

Personally...the thought that babies born with harlequin ichthyosis are mere unfortunate accidents is much more comforting than the belief they have a purpose and it's merely to be born and suffer an agonizing death.

Yes, horrible things like that are more likely under Atheism. They are compatible with Theism, but proponents have to make excuses as to why a loving God would wire reality this way instead of a more intuitively loving way. Then they have to pile up more excuses as to why the loving being does not even tell us about these morally sufficient reasons he supposedly has. Then they have to make excuses to explain how we can expect to have a meaningful relationship with a being who cannot even communicate properly. Theism is just a mess in this regards. If you look at these horrible things, they can be explained by Theism with enough stretching. However, they fit more nicely with an Atheistic worldview.

At 5/14/2013 4:43:45 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:Quite possibly the largest and most thought after question to arise from humanity. I will not be convincing you of any conclusions, but I would like to spare you a more transparent mind towards this topic. I will be starting by describing the state man in his role of being.

Whatever you believe, whether it is atheism or theism or anything other, we all can admit one thing, the universe is an amazing place, beautiful, wrapped in majesty...or is it? Death, decay, rot, destruction etc, feeds this universe to keep on existing as it is. One wouldn't question the disgust of a murderer on whether he is committing beautiful acts because it keeps him satisfied, would they? Even if he gave to the poor along the way, one would still describe this man as morally wrong and destructive. It seems that something evil defines the collective purpose of something that could have been good or morally right.

The universe I think isn't a good place, although beauty does shine here, and in many cases in vast quantities. Beauty doesn't define something as good. As one said, the Devil loves a sun set, the smell of roses and the taste of honey. Trying to answer the question of or purpose is near impossible, and I don't think science has the slightest chance of coming close to the answer. I believe though however that science can direct someone in finding purpose. As human, we communicate through information, or definitive meaning, science does this, but not specifically targeted at humanity, or any kind of intelligence. Or in other words, science cannot give meaning to our existence within our intellectual understanding.

Don't let me mislead you here, science is incredible. It tells us all there is to know about how the universe functions, but like squeezing a lemon onto salmon, the process of such a series of actions doesn't explain what the process is for, it just creates a series of actions that constructed with the use of human ingenuity.

Science with the us of my logic doesn't add up in it's nature to answer purpose, just how things work and why they work. And the answer we seek is the purpose of existence, something science shall never answer.

If a man has a purpose, what would the purpose consist of? For example; if someone needed to catch a plane, this is a purpose. The purpose doesn't concern anyone else, unless they participate in helping this person catch the plane. This of course makes the purpose a personal matter. It is personal in that it is relevant to him that this person can catch the plane.

It is possible that we therefore create our own purposes, the universe, or world as it is more formally known, is what we make it? Yes, if you want you're family to be the reason for your existence, then that is possible. But this kind of purpose doesn't sum up the purpose of the universe, and why we exist in it.

I don't credit myself as being intellectually smart or knowledgeable, but if purpose is reasoned as a personal event for an individual and the universe is defined as being non self explanatory then, we can only conclude that there is no such thing as objective purpose, or that purpose has not opposed use in hiding out of our reach, but maybe, it is just possible that if we seek long enough, in thought and reflection, it might reveal it's self to use. Or simply put, it exists, we just need to find it. Ever had an Easter Egg hunt, yeah like that.

This may not be the most informative article ever, but I hope it shows some interesting points.

Thanks for reading.

I think that you need to take a good, hard look at the threads on this forum.

"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."

At 5/14/2013 4:43:45 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:Quite possibly the largest and most thought after question to arise from humanity. I will not be convincing you of any conclusions, but I would like to spare you a more transparent mind towards this topic. I will be starting by describing the state man in his role of being.

Whatever you believe, whether it is atheism or theism or anything other, we all can admit one thing, the universe is an amazing place, beautiful, wrapped in majesty...or is it? Death, decay, rot, destruction etc, feeds this universe to keep on existing as it is. One wouldn't question the disgust of a murderer on whether he is committing beautiful acts because it keeps him satisfied, would they? Even if he gave to the poor along the way, one would still describe this man as morally wrong and destructive. It seems that something evil defines the collective purpose of something that could have been good or morally right.

Interesting. In one sentence, talk of the sublimities of nature, and in another suggestions of natural law.

The universe I think isn't a good place, although beauty does shine here, and in many cases in vast quantities. Beauty doesn't define something as good. As one said, the Devil loves a sun set, the smell of roses and the taste of honey. Trying to answer the question of or purpose is near impossible, and I don't think science has the slightest chance of coming close to the answer. I believe though however that science can direct someone in finding purpose. As human, we communicate through information, or definitive meaning, science does this, but not specifically targeted at humanity, or any kind of intelligence. Or in other words, science cannot give meaning to our existence within our intellectual understanding.

Don't let me mislead you here, science is incredible. It tells us all there is to know about how the universe functions, but like squeezing a lemon onto salmon, the process of such a series of actions doesn't explain what the process is for, it just creates a series of actions that constructed with the use of human ingenuity.

Lemon on top of salmon (as long as it is wild salmon) tastes delicious.

Science with the us of my logic doesn't add up in it's nature to answer purpose, just how things work and why they work. And the answer we seek is the purpose of existence, something science shall never answer.

I think that's a bit problematic, because while we may not be able to as humans produce a "final" answer that says to a definitive end what the meaning of life is, we nevertheless offer "answers" and have since the beginning of our time. Is one right or wrong, or more right or wrong than any other? Hard to say -but we still offer answers to questions which seem too big for comprehension.

If a man has a purpose, what would the purpose consist of? For example; if someone needed to catch a plane, this is a purpose. The purpose doesn't concern anyone else, unless they participate in helping this person catch the plane. This of course makes the purpose a personal matter. It is personal in that it is relevant to him that this person can catch the plane.

It is possible that we therefore create our own purposes, the universe, or world as it is more formally known, is what we make it? Yes, if you want you're family to be the reason for your existence, then that is possible. But this kind of purpose doesn't sum up the purpose of the universe, and why we exist in it.

We create our own purposes from our particular circumstances, yes. That's a very American liberal notion though (which is good).

I don't credit myself as being intellectually smart or knowledgeable, but if purpose is reasoned as a personal event for an individual and the universe is defined as being non self explanatory then, we can only conclude that there is no such thing as objective purpose, or that purpose has not opposed use in hiding out of our reach, but maybe, it is just possible that if we seek long enough, in thought and reflection, it might reveal it's self to use. Or simply put, it exists, we just need to find it. Ever had an Easter Egg hunt, yeah like that.

Sure... we find it for ourselves. The important thing to recognize is that we are free to choose whatever meaning we want for our lives.

This may not be the most informative article ever, but I hope it shows some interesting points.

Thanks for reading.

Interesting thoughts. Reminds me of Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence." The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, or on DDO I suppose.

At 5/15/2013 11:30:22 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:Life has no inherent meaning or purpose. You must discover your own purpose and fill your life with meaning based on your design, no one else's.

I'm not trying to prove anything by asking this, but what if, on this view, some individual deems it fit to attach as the subjective purpose of his life to torture, rape and kill random individuals?

Then they will be removed from society, because pretty much all of us do not feel that way. We are no more objectively right than the rapist killer, but that is not important. What is important is that our collectively subjective moral wants are not damaged so we can live a live we personally feel is good before we perish and die.

At 5/14/2013 9:18:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:I'd say that on atheism, there appears to be no objective purpose to man's life; man is nothing but an accident. He is just a configuration of matter not unlike a rock or an amoeba that by chance just so happened to take such "man" form. He is destined to die individually and his whole race - indeed the whole universe - is doomed to perish if not in the not-so-distant future, in heat death of the universe.

If reeses peanut butter cups came about by accident would that make them any less delicious?

Notice I left room on atheism for the existence of subjective purpose that homo sapiens are able to attach to their lives. I'm simply saying that the only type of purpose man can have on atheism seems to be completely non-objective (i.e. subjective). It doesn't help your attempt at an analogy to have it hinge upon something or other being delicious or not; deliciousness is a subjective feature of things.

Personally...the thought that babies born with harlequin ichthyosis are mere unfortunate accidents is much more comforting than the belief they have a purpose and it's merely to be born and suffer an agonizing death.

God doesn't will humans be born with abhorrent diseases or physical ailments. He obviously allows these things to occur, for whatever reason. But it would be erroneous to think that the purpose of life, if God exists, is to have a happy, enjoyable existence with God tending to our every need and comfort as his pets. Rather, the purpose of life seems to be to know of God, given our unique capacity for rational thought (and no, I'm not making some such claim that Earth is the only planet in the universe with life).

My point was that it doesn't matter if it's objective. Hence the reeses analogy, in which I was demonstrating that no one cares whether or not their food is objectively tasty when it's giving them a mouthgasm.

God created the conditions allowing for it, god can do all that's logically possible...it's logically possible that a world in which harlequin Ichthyosis doesn't exist, therefore he could have left it out. Babies that die from that condition don't have the capacity to know god, so if that's our purpose...he didn't do a very good job allowing everyone the potential to meet it.

At 5/14/2013 9:18:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:I'd say that on atheism, there appears to be no objective purpose to man's life; man is nothing but an accident. He is just a configuration of matter not unlike a rock or an amoeba that by chance just so happened to take such "man" form. He is destined to die individually and his whole race - indeed the whole universe - is doomed to perish if not in the not-so-distant future, in heat death of the universe.

If reeses peanut butter cups came about by accident would that make them any less delicious?

Notice I left room on atheism for the existence of subjective purpose that homo sapiens are able to attach to their lives. I'm simply saying that the only type of purpose man can have on atheism seems to be completely non-objective (i.e. subjective). It doesn't help your attempt at an analogy to have it hinge upon something or other being delicious or not; deliciousness is a subjective feature of things.

Personally...the thought that babies born with harlequin ichthyosis are mere unfortunate accidents is much more comforting than the belief they have a purpose and it's merely to be born and suffer an agonizing death.

God doesn't will humans be born with abhorrent diseases or physical ailments. He obviously allows these things to occur, for whatever reason. But it would be erroneous to think that the purpose of life, if God exists, is to have a happy, enjoyable existence with God tending to our every need and comfort as his pets. Rather, the purpose of life seems to be to know of God, given our unique capacity for rational thought (and no, I'm not making some such claim that Earth is the only planet in the universe with life).

My point was that it doesn't matter if it's objective. Hence the reeses analogy, in which I was demonstrating that no one cares whether or not their food is objectively tasty when it's giving them a mouthgasm.

Exactly. It is just like free will; it does not matter whether we have it or not. Whether my consciousness freely chose to have sex with Jessia Alba, or whether my brain determined this I'm still having sex with Jessica Alba! Similarly, it does not matter whether the food was designed or random, it still tastes good! Categorizing things in this fashion seems trivial because the results are the same.

God created the conditions allowing for it, god can do all that's logically possible...it's logically possible that a world in which harlequin Ichthyosis doesn't exist, therefore he could have left it out. Babies that die from that condition don't have the capacity to know god, so if that's our purpose...he didn't do a very good job allowing everyone the potential to meet it.

At 5/14/2013 9:18:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:I'd say that on atheism, there appears to be no objective purpose to man's life; man is nothing but an accident. He is just a configuration of matter not unlike a rock or an amoeba that by chance just so happened to take such "man" form. He is destined to die individually and his whole race - indeed the whole universe - is doomed to perish if not in the not-so-distant future, in heat death of the universe.

If reeses peanut butter cups came about by accident would that make them any less delicious?

Notice I left room on atheism for the existence of subjective purpose that homo sapiens are able to attach to their lives. I'm simply saying that the only type of purpose man can have on atheism seems to be completely non-objective (i.e. subjective). It doesn't help your attempt at an analogy to have it hinge upon something or other being delicious or not; deliciousness is a subjective feature of things.

Personally...the thought that babies born with harlequin ichthyosis are mere unfortunate accidents is much more comforting than the belief they have a purpose and it's merely to be born and suffer an agonizing death.

God doesn't will humans be born with abhorrent diseases or physical ailments. He obviously allows these things to occur, for whatever reason. But it would be erroneous to think that the purpose of life, if God exists, is to have a happy, enjoyable existence with God tending to our every need and comfort as his pets. Rather, the purpose of life seems to be to know of God, given our unique capacity for rational thought (and no, I'm not making some such claim that Earth is the only planet in the universe with life).

My point was that it doesn't matter if it's objective. Hence the reeses analogy, in which I was demonstrating that no one cares whether or not their food is objectively tasty when it's giving them a mouthgasm.

Exactly. It is just like free will; it does not matter whether we have it or not. Whether my consciousness freely chose to have sex with Jessia Alba, or whether my brain determined this I'm still having sex with Jessica Alba! Similarly, it does not matter whether the food was designed or random, it still tastes good! Categorizing things in this fashion seems trivial because the results are the same.

God created the conditions allowing for it, god can do all that's logically possible...it's logically possible that a world in which harlequin Ichthyosis doesn't exist, therefore he could have left it out. Babies that die from that condition don't have the capacity to know god, so if that's our purpose...he didn't do a very good job allowing everyone the potential to meet it.

I agree

Really, the problem is horrible reductionist garbage. "So love is 'just' chemical proceses in the brain?" ...well obviously if you are upset at the thought...it's far more than 'just' chemical processes in the brain. Love is love, I don't see how it's origins make a difference if it's the FEELING that's so important and great.

At 5/14/2013 4:43:45 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:Quite possibly the largest and most thought after question to arise from humanity. I will not be convincing you of any conclusions, but I would like to spare you a more transparent mind towards this topic. I will be starting by describing the state man in his role of being.

Whatever you believe, whether it is atheism or theism or anything other, we all can admit one thing, the universe is an amazing place, beautiful, wrapped in majesty...or is it? Death, decay, rot, destruction etc, feeds this universe to keep on existing as it is. One wouldn't question the disgust of a murderer on whether he is committing beautiful acts because it keeps him satisfied, would they? Even if he gave to the poor along the way, one would still describe this man as morally wrong and destructive. It seems that something evil defines the collective purpose of something that could have been good or morally right.

The universe I think isn't a good place, although beauty does shine here, and in many cases in vast quantities. Beauty doesn't define something as good. As one said, the Devil loves a sun set, the smell of roses and the taste of honey. Trying to answer the question of or purpose is near impossible, and I don't think science has the slightest chance of coming close to the answer. I believe though however that science can direct someone in finding purpose. As human, we communicate through information, or definitive meaning, science does this, but not specifically targeted at humanity, or any kind of intelligence. Or in other words, science cannot give meaning to our existence within our intellectual understanding.

Don't let me mislead you here, science is incredible. It tells us all there is to know about how the universe functions, but like squeezing a lemon onto salmon, the process of such a series of actions doesn't explain what the process is for, it just creates a series of actions that constructed with the use of human ingenuity.

Science with the us of my logic doesn't add up in it's nature to answer purpose, just how things work and why they work. And the answer we seek is the purpose of existence, something science shall never answer.

If a man has a purpose, what would the purpose consist of? For example; if someone needed to catch a plane, this is a purpose. The purpose doesn't concern anyone else, unless they participate in helping this person catch the plane. This of course makes the purpose a personal matter. It is personal in that it is relevant to him that this person can catch the plane.

It is possible that we therefore create our own purposes, the universe, or world as it is more formally known, is what we make it? Yes, if you want you're family to be the reason for your existence, then that is possible. But this kind of purpose doesn't sum up the purpose of the universe, and why we exist in it.

I don't credit myself as being intellectually smart or knowledgeable, but if purpose is reasoned as a personal event for an individual and the universe is defined as being non self explanatory then, we can only conclude that there is no such thing as objective purpose, or that purpose has not opposed use in hiding out of our reach, but maybe, it is just possible that if we seek long enough, in thought and reflection, it might reveal it's self to use. Or simply put, it exists, we just need to find it. Ever had an Easter Egg hunt, yeah like that.

This may not be the most informative article ever, but I hope it shows some interesting points.

Thanks for reading.

The reason for Existence is to love YHWH and serve Him as Israel through His Messiah who is Yahushua!!!

I AM THE CHOSEN ONE
I AM THE GRAND POOBAH OF DDO
I AM THE BOOGIE MAN
I AM THE REAL LIFE SANTA CLAUSE
I AM THE PARADOXICAL ZEBRA PRANCING THROUGH THE GRASSY PLANES YOUR COGNITIVE EXPERIENCE
I AM THE REINCARNATION OF THE DEAD DREAMS OF HUMANITY
I AM THE DISH WHO RAN AWAY WITH THE SPOON
I am your friend.

At 5/14/2013 9:18:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:I'd say that on atheism, there appears to be no objective purpose to man's life; man is nothing but an accident. He is just a configuration of matter not unlike a rock or an amoeba that by chance just so happened to take such "man" form. He is destined to die individually and his whole race - indeed the whole universe - is doomed to perish if not in the not-so-distant future, in heat death of the universe.

Quantum phenomena, alternate universes, the re-big-bang or deities may save us from heat-death. ;)

"Existence" is not a thing subject to having or not having a "purpose." Also, "life" is not a thing subject to having a "meaning." The questions seems to be a proper questions, but are meaningless.

They are in the class of questions like "What kind of music does a flower pot like?" or "What color is Wednesday?" This usually gets responses saying the "flower pots like Bing Crosby" and "Wednesday is gray." What that shows is that even though the question has no meaning, we are able to make up metaphors related to the question that have meaning.

A person can decide that they "live to do xxxx", but that's different.